SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Appellant
Versus
HEMANT RAO SONTEKE – Respondent
WA/110/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:6455-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

W.A No.110 of 2026

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of

Forest Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur

Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1)

2 - Principal Chief Conservator Forest Head Quarter Jail Road

Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No.2)

3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Circle Durg, District- Durg

Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.3)

4 - Divisional Forest Officer Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No.4)

5 - Chairman Scrutiny Committee Manpur/ Divisional Forest Officer

SISTLA

NEELIMA Forest Division Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh,

VISHNU PRIYA

(Respondent No.5)

Digitally signed by

SISTLA NEELIMA

VISHNU PRIYA

Date: 2026.02.06

10:56:32 +0530

6 - Under Secretary State Of C.G. Department Of Forest

##PAGE2##

2

Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-

Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No.6) ... Appellants

versus

Hemant Rao Sonteke S/o Late Shri N.B. Sonteke Aged About 50

Years R/o Sadhu Chal Tulsipur Ward No.18 Budh Vihar Gali No.01,

District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh(Petitioner) ... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellants/State : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate

General.

For Respondent : None.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

05.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate

General appearing for the State/Appellants on IA No.01/2026,

which is an application for condonation of delay.

2. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the

State/Appellants submits that the learned Single, Judge on

17.07.2025, passed the impugned order of allowing WPS No.

2465/2020. Thereafter, the Department of Forest had sought an

opinion from the office of the Advocate General vide letter dated

##PAGE3##

3

21.08.2025 upon which, the Office of the Advocate General vide its

letter dated 07.10.2025, has accorded opinion for filing Appeal and

thereafter on 07.11.2025, Department of Forest sought permission

from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs for the same

and accordingly, sanction for filing Appeal has been accorded on

25.11.2025 and thereafter OIC was appointed vide order dated

27.11.2025 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Forest, Rajnandgaon and

the present Appeal is being drafted and filed before this Hon’ble

Court.

3. It is contended that despite obtaining the requisite

documents and information relating to the case, a delay occurred

on account of compliance with departmental formalities and the

functioning of the Government machinery, the State Government

being a multifunctional body that may require additional time for

completion of such procedures. Consequently, in certain cases,

the State is prevented from filing the matter within the prescribed

period of limitation, which is bona fide and not deliberate. The

present Appeal has, therefore, been filed with a delay of 131 days

beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Reliance has been

placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the matter of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and others,

reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132 to buttress his submissions. As

such, the learned State Counsel prays that the delay of 131 days in

##PAGE4##

4

preferring the Appeal may be condoned.

4. Thus, the limited issue for determination is whether the delay

of 131 days in preferring the present Writ Appeal deserves to be

condoned in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Postmaster

General and others v. Living Media India Limited and another,

reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, has dealt with the limitation issue

and held as under:-

“27. It is not in dispute that the person(s)

concerned were well aware or conversant with the

issues involved

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top